Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: dither (Read 3181 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dither

Is there a better/less noisy dither plugin than standard(embedded) available for Foobar to do 24/96 to CD conversion?

Re: dither

Reply #1 –
Serious? It will be hard to find a less noisy shape when it comes to audibility.
If you enjoy your music purely by watching spectral pics the situation may be different.
AFAIK the shape of the noise is a finetuned version of Naoki Shibata ATH based dither he introduced with SSRC.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: dither

Reply #2 –
Ok, so it seems that using standard filter is the only option ...

Re: dither

Reply #3 –
You may also use foobar, convert to 32bit and dither with another software but this i guess is of no help to easy convert.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: dither

Reply #4 –
Yes, of no help ...

I was just wondering whether noise shapind done by Foobar is appropriate e.g. versus plain TPDF as recommended by some sites.

Re: dither

Reply #5 –
Most recordings should not get near a 16bit noisefloor so everything but TPDF dither is overkill.
The idea behind using the shaped dither by default is to be always on the safe side.
If there really is extreme silence the shape will give you many dB headroom.
If the recording is noisy by its own you will hear the noise in the lower frequencies of the source long before the dither HF noise you spot by eye.
It works.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: dither

Reply #6 –
Most of nowadays recordings are effectively at ca 10-12 bit due to loudness war mastering. No matter is this is rock, techno, trance or whatever. Only classical music, some folk / national music recordings and other non-mainstream, quiet recordings can reach true 16 bits. So of course it always depends on what you are listening to if there is a reason to change such quirks.

Re: dither

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Most recordings should not get near a 16bit noisefloor so everything but TPDF dither is overkill.
The idea behind using the shaped dither by default is to be always on the safe side.
If there really is extreme silence the shape will give you many dB headroom.
If the recording is noisy by its own you will hear the noise in the lower frequencies of the source long before the dither HF noise you spot by eye.
It works.

So why Foobar does not offer TFPD dither too?

Just wondering ... I know that probably i am puzzling with something not neccessary to puzzle with ..,

Re: dither

Reply #10 –
Been there done that; only interesting in that it raises more questions than it provides answers.

...but in a thread requesting TPDF, no less.  Don't worry, the irony has not been lost on me.

I recommend you take that flimsy paper with a grain of salt.

Re: dither

Reply #11 –
The paper nowhere claims problems with noise shaped dither when i remember right.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: dither

Reply #12 –
OK, thank you for an opinion ....

Re: dither

Reply #14 –
OK, and I also agree than in thread about TPDF and other dithering no general discussion about can be heard/cannot be heard is appropriate,

To conclude, when converting 24/96 to CD standard 16/44.1 according to current knowledge foobars db/SSRC resampler and standard dither is enough, right ?

Re: dither

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Wombat on
The paper nowhere claims problems with noise shaped dither when i remember right.
Except as a fuckup on their part, that paper had nothing to do with dither.

Re: dither

Reply #16 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
To conclude, when converting 24/96 to CD standard 16/44.1 according to current knowledge foobars db/SSRC resampler and standard dither is enough, right ?
Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, it should be enough; correct.

Re: dither

Reply #17 –
Thank you .... I have limited experience and wanted to be sure that when converting some FLAC 24 tracks to play on my cd player I am not losing quality more than neccessary.

Re: dither

Reply #18 –
The more relevant question for me is why they sell 24bit material as such when downsampled does not profit of noise-shaping ;)
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: dither

Reply #20 –
I know that it is hard to obtain true 24/96 recordings, I have only limited number of those tracks and majority of them are from my old vinyl sources which are pretty overplayed now. But this is not the main topic of this discussion ...

 

Re: dither

Reply #24 –
Alright, maybe I am not as advanced audiophile as the others here, so my posts could be searching for knowledge rather than proving it.

Anyway I tried the SoX command line program and find its dither options promising.

Also it is discussed (http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_aliasing.php) that some cheaper (but common) sound card can exhibit playback aliasing at upper range frequencies which can compromise the statement about not hearing the shaped filters, since it can manifest as different sound/distortion in lower range.

If anybody experienced can discuss e.g. TPDF, TPDF shaped, modified-e-weighted, low-shibata etc. it could be probably beneficial.

Best,

Jan